論消失中的未遂教唆

The Vanishing “Abortive Abetment”

系所名稱：法律學系碩士班 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：96年 指導教授：黃常仁 本論文研製之目的，在於一方面肯認「未遂教唆」具可罰性，二方面由於「未遂教唆」並非直接實行分則構成要件之行為，因此，在我國採取「限縮行為人」的刑法體系下，其本質是一個以「重罪」為連結要件的「刑罰擴張事由」，屬於「共犯」的一種。詳言之，此次立法理由對於「共犯」是採取「限制從屬形式」，並否認「共犯獨立性」之存在，可值贊同。惟有疑者係，「共犯」真如立法理由所云，只能依「共犯從屬形式」而成立嗎？是否另有其他同等地位之「刑罰擴張事由」存在空間呢？對此，筆者認為教唆人一旦為「未遂教唆」行為，此時客觀上就產生一個脫離教唆者控制的法益侵害危險，而該法益侵害危險是以「特定重罪既遂」為目的，準此，為免特定「重罪」真的被實現而產生難以回復之損害，且無其他手段可資代替刑罰，所以不得不針對此一特殊危險行為加以提前處罰。此即「未遂教唆」之正當化處罰基礎。綜上，我國「共犯」雖係以「從屬性」為原則，但例外於「未遂教唆」時，亦有刑罰擴張之餘地，用以補充法益保護不足之處。需注意者，此擴張處罰規定並非意指「共犯獨立說」之復甦，蓋在「限縮行為人」概念之下，並無「共犯獨立說」存在空間，因其會破壞整個構成要件刑法之結構。此外，若肯認「未遂教唆」具可罰性，其是否有抵觸刑法基本原則？若不罰「未遂教唆」，其會產生何種後果？德國刑法又是如何規定？我們應如何省思？該等相關爭議，於本篇論文均有述及，並於文末，配合我國國情，提出修法芻議，以供將來立法參考。

A procedure is on the one hand to admit the punishment of “Abortive Abetment”, on the other hand, the act of inducing someone to commit unlawful act is essentially another “expansive cause of penalty” connected with “serious offence” in Restrictive Perpetrator Concept of Taiwan Penal System, for the reason that the “Attempted Instigation” is not the direct action of “elements of an offence”. This subornation is also a kind of the one who takes part.Say in other words. This reason of legislation takes recognition to admit “Limited Subordinate Establishment Property of the Participator”, and to renounce “Independent Establishment of the Participator”. The author generally approves this reason of legislation, but it is a doubt that only “Limited Subordinate Establishment Property of the Participator”? Is it possible the existence of another same status “The Expansive Cause of Penalty”?The author generally considers that when the abettor has perpetrated this attempted instigation; objectively this abetment makes the violative danger of legally protected right, which is out of abettor’s control, which also attaches the purpose of “finishing of specific serious offence”. Consequently, in order to prevent the great damage of “finishing of specific serious offence”, in addition the penalty isn’t replaced by other punishment（e.g. Amercement）, we have no choice but to take the punishment in advance for this special danger. This just reasons the expansive cause of penalty for “Attempted Instigation”.The long and short of it, the criminal law in Taiwan generally holds “Subordinate Establishment Property of the Participator”, but “Attempted Instigation” is an exception, which is another expansive cause of penalty used to refill the lack of legally protected right. It’s cautious that “the expansive cause of penalty” doesn’t mean the anabiosis of “Independent Establishment of the Participator”, which is no space in “Restrictive Perpetrator Concept” because of sabotage for all structure of elements of an offence.As for the interrelated debate, e.g. the penalty isn’t against the fundamentals of the penal code, or will the abolishment of attempted instigation create the lack of the legally protected right, or how to stipulate in Germany Penal Code, or how to deliberate in Taiwan Penal Code, author all presents in this research, and in the end of thesis also submits the lawmaking proposal combining condition of our country.